2005 (4) TMI 544 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Realisation of transit fee on transport of various minerals and forest produce.
2. Validity of the notification dated 14.6.2004 amending the U.P. (Transport of Timber and other Forest Produce) Rules, 1978.
3. Definition and scope of "forest produce" under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
4. Applicability of transit fee on goods not transported through forest land.
5. Allegation of arbitrariness and discrimination in the increased fee from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 38/- per tonne.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Realisation of Transit Fee on Transport of Various Minerals and Forest Produce:
The petitioners challenged the realisation of transit fee on the transport of stone chips, stone grit, stone ballast, sand, morrum, coal, limestone, dolomite, etc., within the State of U.P. The petitioners argued that they did not transport these goods through forest areas and did not use forest roads. They paid royalty under the U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963, and previously paid a transit fee of Rs. 5/- per tonne, which was increased to Rs. 38/- per tonne by the notification dated 14.6.2004. The respondents contended that the petitioners were procuring these materials from areas notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and thus, the goods were considered forest produce, making them liable for the transit fee.

2. Validity of the Notification Dated 14.6.2004:
The petitioners also challenged the validity of the notification dated 14.6.2004, which amended the U.P. (Transport of Timber and other Forest Produce) Rules, 1978, increasing the transit fee from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 38/- per tonne. The respondents argued that the fee increase was justified as it had remained unchanged for over 25 years and was upheld by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Sitapur Packing Wood Suppliers. The court found the fee regulatory in nature, thus not requiring the establishment of quid pro quo.

3. Definition and Scope of "Forest Produce" under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927:
The court examined Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which defines "forest produce." Clause (a) includes items such as timber and charcoal, whether found in or brought from a forest or not. Clause (b) includes items like trees, plants, wild animals, and minerals when found in or brought from a forest. The court held that the goods in question, being products of mines and quarries, fell under clause (b) and were thus forest produce if found in or brought from a forest.

4. Applicability of Transit Fee on Goods Not Transported Through Forest Land:
The petitioners argued that they did not transport the goods through forest land and thus should not be liable for the transit fee. However, the court found that the goods were either found in or brought from forest areas, and even if the goods did not pass through forest land, they were still considered forest produce under the Act. The court referred to various dictionary meanings of "brought" to conclude that goods carried from a forest are considered brought from a forest.

5. Allegation of Arbitrariness and Discrimination in the Increased Fee:
The petitioners claimed that the increased fee of Rs. 38/- per tonne was arbitrary and discriminatory. The court found that the fee was uniformly applied to all forest produce transported by lorry load and was not excessive, exorbitant, or prohibitive. The court noted that the fee amounted to 38 paise per kg, which was reasonable. The petitioners failed to provide details to establish that the fee was prohibitive or confiscatory.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the realisation of the transit fee and the validity of the notification dated 14.6.2004. The court found that the goods in question were forest produce under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the increased fee was justified and not arbitrary or discriminatory.